MARIVIC A. MORALES Case No.

1
Labor Law I Block A

CARLOS vs VILLEGAS
G.R. No. L-24394 August 30, 1968

FACTS:

Starting September 16, 1957, petitioner and other members of the Uniformed Force Division of
the Manila Fire Department have been required and ordered by the Chief of the Manila Fire
Department to be 24 hours on duty and 24 hours off duty, alternately; this schedule continuous
throughout the days of the week regardless of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Firemen are
given time to rest from 12:00 noon to 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, and time to sleep from 9:00
o'clock in the evening to 6:00 o'clock the following morning. On July 10, 1957, the Chief of the
Manila Fire Department requested the Office of the President for the members of the Uniformed
Force Division and of the Fire Alarm and Radio Division of the department to render service
without overtime pay beyond the 40-hour-5-day a week requirement of the law.

On December 9, 1962, a petition was filed claiming payment for overtime services rendered and
demanding the enforcement of the 40-hour a week work law with respect to the Uniformed Force
Division of the Manila Fire Department the answer to the petition was that services rendered
beyond a regular period fixed by R.A. No. 1880 will not entitle the employee to overtime pay as
a matter of legal right. Then, on December 26, 1962, petitioner addressed a petition to the
President of the Philippines praying that the latter order the City of Manila to pay petitioner and
other members of the MFD Uniformed Force Division for overtime services rendered and to
enforce the 40-hour a week law; unfortunately there was no favorable reply.

ISSUE:

Are employees falling under the civil service law such as members of the Uniformed Force
Division of the Manila Fire Department, who were required to render overtime service on work
days and holidays, entitled to collect overtime pay for overtime services rendered?

RULING:

No, such employees are not entitled to collect overtime pay for overtime services rendered. The
Eight-Hour Labor Law was not intended to apply to civil service employees who are still
governed by the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code specifically Section 566 which
provides for the extension of hours and required overtime work; that when the interests of the
public service so require, the daily hour of labor may be extended and employees may be required to do
overtime work not only during the regular working days but also during holidays, and Section 259 which
provides for inhibition against payment of extra compensation; that in the absence of special provision,
persons regularly and permanently appointed under the Civil Service Law or whose salary, wages or
emoluments are fixed by law or regulation shall not, for any service rendered or labor done by them on
holidays or for other overtime work, receive or be paid any additional compensation.